Audism

[AlleyCat]

Totally agree, Shel. He said it all.

I started lol'ing around minute 3. It was so perfect.

 

[jillio]

The difference between your interpretation of the quote in your signature and my readings and real life conversations with Marschark.

I don't think I can help you here anyway.

And I agree. I think the quote in and of itself, when looked at in the entirety of the interview, is being misunderstood.

 

[jillio]

Honestly, this is my opinion, but I think people are upset about the choice of Grendel's quote because of the phrase "one size doesn't fit all" that is within the quote. That phrase is usually spurted out by pro-oral people. So I think that phrase automatically triggers an anti-oral attack. And they don't want to highlight that "oralist sounding" quote specifically from a man that has given a lot of support to the Deaf community.

Yes, this very quote has been used by some to justify an oral only environment for deaf kids. And that, as well, is a distortion of what the man is saying.

 

[GrendelQ]

And I agree. I think the quote in and of itself, when looked at in the entirety of the interview, is being misunderstood.

What is your take on the quote and how do you see that it runs counter to my use of it in support of our decision to enroll my child at a bi-bi school for the deaf, to have made her primary language ASL, placing her in an immersive environment from the age of 1, and allowing acquisition of spoken language through incidental learning using CIs?

 

[jillio]

What is your take on the quote and how do you see that it runs counter to my use of it in support of our decision to enroll my child at a bi-bi school for the deaf, to have made her primary language ASL, placing her in an immersive environment from the age of 1, and allowing acquisition of spoken language through incidental learning using CIs?

My take on the quote is that it is supportive of ASL immersive environments for kids whether they have CI, HA, or are unaided. That CI kids do not need to be in oral only environments just because they have a CI, and HA using kids do not need to be in a mainstream environment just because they have decent speech skills, etc. Too often placement is decided on just those factors. That no matter the level of hearing loss or type of assistive technology used, language delay and is still occurring at unsettling rates. Of course, I used the rest of the article to make my interpretation.

I never said that it runs counter to your decision to enroll your daughter in a bi-bi school. I said that the quote is misused to justify oral placement.

 

[BecLak]

Then would you settle for needlessly pedantic? BecLak's definition was accurate enough for the purposes of this thread, and your pointless hair splitting has added nothing to the discussion.

Mountain Man.

 

[GrendelQ]

...

I never said that it runs counter to your decision to enroll your daughter in a bi-bi school. I said that the quote is misused to justify oral placement.

When you responded to Flip in agreement, below, it appears you are indicating that I've misused the quote. If you don't think I'm using it to justify oral placement -- since I'm not a proponent of such placement -- in what way am I misunderstanding it?

The difference between your interpretation of the quote in your signature and my readings and real life conversations with Marschark.

I don't think I can help you here anyway.

And I agree. I think the quote in and of itself, when looked at in the entirety of the interview, is being misunderstood.

 

[jillio]

When you responded to Flip in agreement, below, it appears you are indicating that I've misused the quote. If you don't think I'm using it to justify oral placement -- since I'm not a proponent of such placement -- in what way am I misunderstanding it?

Perhaps it appears that way to you, but that was not what I was intending. I was agreeing with Flip that the quote is often used, out of context, to promote oral placement, and that it is a quote that is often misunderstood in contextual meaning as a result. In and of itself, the quote is easily abused and used innappropriately, and that is why it is important to keep it in context.

 

[BecLak]

That's a creative interpretation of my words. But not accurate in the least.

Then why the hair-splitting on my definition of audism?

 

[flip]

I don't think so either. But maybe it would help us reconcile this if you provided your interpretation.

Happy to be associated with marschark. Are all who respect his work considered oral people?

I don't see how it's possible to reconcile with people with your kind of attitude, described by PFH in his ASL post, but I am open to it.

I don't have any interpretations. All I can do is to try to understand Marschark and examine the certainies and uncertainies in his research. He is not a politican, but a researcher.

The last question from you is far from an attempt to reconcile and adds nothing to this discussion, so will refrain from answering that one. Also, it was Daredevel who claimed your Marschark quote were "oral people", not me, so suggest you ask her.

 

[GrendelQ]

Then why the hair-splitting on my definition of audism?

I see your definition as covering only one facet of audism, one that's more common among those already familiar with, but not accepting of Deaf Culture, but not including that which is most common among hearing people.

 

[GrendelQ]

Perhaps it appears that way to you, but that was not what I was intending. I was agreeing with Flip that the quote is often used, out of context, to promote oral placement, and that it is a quote that is often misunderstood in contextual meaning as a result. In and of itself, the quote is easily abused and used innappropriately, and that is why it is important to keep it in context.

Thanks for explaining, Jillio, I understand.

 

[BecLak]

I see your definition as covering only one facet of audism, one that's more common among those already familiar with, but not accepting of Deaf Culture, but not including that which is most common among hearing people.

You are just not 'getting' it - that's all.

 

[GrendelQ]

You are just not 'getting' it - that's all.

Perhaps. But I don't understand why this group opposes the definitions created by the originator of the term, and expanded by other leading Deaf thinkers on the topic and chooses instead what appears to be a very limited cultural definition.

Audism is a non-acceptance of Deaf having their own Culture and Language. That if you don't adapt to Hearing (with aid of HA, CI or by being oral), you get treated as inferior or with disgust, like a 'broken toy'.

Consider the example I gave of my daughter's close friend at gymnastics. Her teacher was more than willing to teach her and provide separate instruction -- respecting that English wasn't her language and accommodating her, but did not integrate her into the class or provide access to the teaching in an equal way with the other children. That teacher has no understanding that there exists a Deaf Culture. Doesn't consider the little girl's situation as what you described: a rejection or unwillingness to adapt to Hearing culture. She just thinks the child can't hear ... and therefore can't learn alongside the other children and requires a less rigorous instruction in gymnastics and lowered bar of expectation. I see that as audism. Even if there's no conception of a cultural element for the instructor or the child, the instructor thinks the child is less capable, inferior -- as a gymnast -- because she physically can't hear (which, obvious to us, has no bearing).

And consider the deaf person who does use HAs, someone not a participant in traditional Deaf Culture, fully integrated into "Hearing culture" who graduated from a highly regarded school, has strong experience, and yet because he or she has a 'deaf accent' is perceived as less intelligent and capable by a potential employer who doesn't hire her, despite being fully qualified. That is still audism even if there's no cultural component -- no perception that the person is 'choosing' not to adapt.

It seems to me that this case isn't covered by your definition, but is still audism. I posted this in my first message -- and as a result have been asked to justify everything from my signature quote to the practice or oralism, which I am not a proponent of, and accused of defending hearing people, which I am actually targeting most heavily with my expansion of your definition. I don't understand why people can't simply explain how these are covered by a cultural definition, or say they just don't think these examples are cases of audism.

 

[BecLak]

Deaf Culture and all that it entails is what enables a d/Deaf person to be a whole, complete identity in being d/Deaf, without the need of conforming to the expectations of the Hearing population. [If a d/Deaf person so chooses to use assistive hearing apparatus for their own convenience and/or to interact with the Hearing then it is their personal choice and not that which is enforced or imposed upon by the Hearing population (as is also their personal choice to use sign language or visual communication). ] Any be-rating of a d/Deaf person because they are simply non-hearing/Deaf or non-conforming to the expectations of the Hearing population is also displaying a non-acceptance of all that Deaf Culture stands for, and by doing so stating that the d/Deaf person is inferior, therefore it is audism.

 

[GrendelQ]

Deaf Culture and all that it entails is what enables a d/Deaf person to be a whole, complete identity in being d/Deaf, without the need of conforming to the expectations of the Hearing population. [If a d/Deaf person so chooses to use assistive hearing apparatus for their own convenience and/or to interact with the Hearing then it is their personal choice and not that which is enforced or imposed upon by the Hearing population (as is also their personal choice to use sign language or visual communication). ] Any be-rating of a d/Deaf person because they are simply non-hearing/Deaf or non-conforming to the expectations of the Hearing population is also displaying a non-acceptance of all that Deaf Culture stands for, and by doing so stating that the d/Deaf person is inferior, therefore it is audism.

I think that's a very reasonable explanation. I like it a lot, Beclak, and I now see where you are coming from.

I think there's complexity introduced in that this definition requires a deep knowledge of and an agreement of what Deaf Culture stands for -- that seems not to be clear even within the deaf community -- to understand what audism can encompass.

It seems that while this definition may be clear to those already deeply familiar with Deaf Culture and who agree that Deaf Culture stands for all deaf, whether SL-using or oral or CI or HA-using or very-late-deafened, it might not be something that communicates well to a typical hearing person unfamiliar with the Deaf world or to someone who doesn't see a non-signing, oral deaf person as part of Deaf Culture.

 

[BecLak]

Here is an example: My husband is Ethnic. Wherever he may live, whatever he may eat, or whatever lifestyle he may choose to live, he is still Ethnic. I am Caucasian, even though I love my husband's people and I can interact and adapt to the culture as one of them, I cannot change the fact that I am Causcasian. I still have white skin and fair hair. Your daughter is Chinese, she may be American-Chinese, you as her parents may be Caucasian, but she is still Chinese. Deaf is no different.

 

[BecLak]

I think that's a very reasonable explanation. I like it a lot, Beclak, and I now see where you are coming from.

I think there's complexity introduced in that this definition requires a deep knowledge of and an agreement of what Deaf Culture stands for -- that seems not to be clear even within the deaf community -- to understand what audism can encompass.

It seems that while this definition may be clear to those already deeply familiar with Deaf Culture and who agree that Deaf Culture stands for all deaf, whether SL-using or oral or CI or HA-using or very-late-deafened, it might not be something that communicates well to a typical hearing person unfamiliar with the Deaf world or to someone who doesn't see a non-signing, oral deaf person as part of Deaf Culture.

Whether someone acknowledges or is unaware of the existance of Deaf Culture is irrelevant. The fact is - Audism is very prevalent and anyone who succumbs to it is an audist, knowingly or unknowingly. Ignorance is no longer bliss.

 

[Frisky Feline]

YouTube - Grendel. (capitalized period.)

At the end about one group thinking they are superior over the other group. It has been the feeling I have had for quite a while hence my reason for less participation in those arguments.


You hit the nail on the head. We have personally experienced audism while they havent and no explaination or justification will ever measure up to real life experiences.

Around 3:51 That's how I have been through this like others who are in the same boat as me.

Well said,
pfh (I should use vlog as my natural communication)

and shel90 too!

 

[jillio]

I don't see how it's possible to reconcile with people with your kind of attitude, described by PFH in his ASL post, but I am open to it.

I don't have any interpretations. All I can do is to try to understand Marschark and examine the certainies and uncertainies in his research. He is not a politican, but a researcher.

The last question from you is far from an attempt to reconcile and adds nothing to this discussion, so will refrain from answering that one. Also, it was Daredevel who claimed your Marschark quote were "oral people", not me, so suggest you ask her.

The fact that Marschark is a researcher and not a politician makes his findings all the more valuable. He has no agenda to fulfill. That holds true with all of the researchers into deafness and linguistics, child development, and education and cognitive psychology. Their only motive is to answer questions.